To process the corpus and to test for the
presence of conspiracist discursive elements, we derived six criteria
from the existing literature (see Table 3). Our criteria were
exclusively psychological and hence did not hinge on the validity of
the various hypotheses. This approach follows philosophical precedents
that have examined the epistemology of conspiratorial
theorizing irrespective of its truth value (e.g., Keeley, 1999;
Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). The approach also avoids the need to
discuss or rebut the substance of any of the hypotheses. [bold
added, links dropped]

The whole premise of this article is
rich, given how frequently I see global warming alarmist cry,
"Conspiracy!" The latest example comes from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
(D-RI), who, along
with some academics, wants to press
racketeering charges against "climate deniers:"

The
scientists argue that the systemic efforts to prevent the public from
understanding climate change resembles the investigation undertaken
against tobacco. They draw inspiration from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
who said on the Senate floor that there might be a similar conspiracy
here, and a civil trial could provide the tools of discovery needed to
find out.

So "deniers" are idiots who swap conspiracy
theories, but defenders of science haul out the big guns to stop
denialist conspiracies. This would be hilarious were it not for the
floating of a trial balloon of censorship by an important government
official.